# data[].attributes.body
Statistics: Immigration has doubled in the last 50 years with women being a moiety of total migrants. Effect on the Immigrants: a lot of pressure to earn a living and assimilate into the foreign culture. Why Immigrate: Economic immigrants-looking for a job; globalization has taken a large toll on developing countries which in affect has brought many into deeper poverty-looking for way out; war or persecution, especially from their government; this persecution could be due to their race, religious beliefs, or political view. Effects: (positive) Beneficial to host country mainly economically as their hosts are usually industrialized countries; (negative) Hurts reputation of successful immigrants when some others bring crime into the host country. Immigration in US, UK, media, Europe. Economics and poverty of immigration.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Author and Page information

This page: https://www.globalissues.org/article/537/immigration.

To print all information (e.g. expanded side notes, shows alternative links), use the print version:

On this page:

1. Introduction-Worldwide Immigrants Statistics

2. Why do people emigrate?

3. Effects of Immigration

4. United States

5. United Kingdom

1. Media Coverage

2. Opinions reflect hype - especially during election time

6. United Europe

7. Economics, Poverty and Immigrant Scapegoats

Introduction-Worldwide Immigrants Statistics

Consider the following:

Worldwide, there is an estimated 191 million immigrants;

The last 50 years has seen an almost doubling of immigration;

115 million immigrants live in developed countries;

20% (approximately 38 million) live in the US alone, making up 13% of its population;

33% of all immigrants live in Europe;

75% live in just 28 countries;

Women constitute approximately half of all migrants at around 95 million;

Between 1990 and 2005

There were 36 million migrations (an average of approximately 2.4 million per year);

33 million wound up in industrialized countries;

75% of the increases occurred in just 17 countries;

Immigration decreased in 72 countries in the same period;

Why do people emigrate?

People emigrate from one country to another for a variety of complex reasons. Some are forced to move, due to conflict or to escape persecution and prejudices, while others may voluntarily emigrate. Although such a move may be necessary, it can be quite traumatic on top of the challenges experienced so far.

From another perspective, immigration can also represent an act of courage. For example,

Moving to a different country with different culture and norms can be quite daunting;

The potential loneliness to be suffered is not always easy to overcome;

There may be the additional pressure to earn enough to live (in a more expensive-to-live-in country) and send back meager savings.

An economic migrant, a person searching for work, or better opportunities, will be stepping into the unknown-an exciting prospect if the person is already well-to-do, or daunting at least, if out of desperation.

As Inter Press Service (IPS) reported, the European Union has recently acknowledged a concern about immigration that has not received much media attention. That is, a large number of people are attempting to leave the devastation of their own country caused by the current form of globalization and other political and economic policies, which, as well as creating winners, is creating a large number of losers, and increasing inequality. Tackling poverty and addressing issues of development and opportunity are important aspects of tackling this type of immigration.

Effects of Immigration

Immigration can have positive and negative impacts on both the host (recipient) country, and the original country.

The recipient country is usually an industrialized country in Western Europe, or the United States. For these countries, immigrants offer various benefits such as the following:

Immigrants will often do jobs that people in the host country will not, or cannot do;

Migrant workers often work longer hours and for lower salaries, and while that is controversial, sometimes exploitive, it benefits the host country;

Immigrants, when made to feel welcome in the host society, can contribute to the diversity of that society, which can help with tolerance and understanding;

For the host country's economy, immigrants offer an increased talent pool, if they have been well educated in their original country.

But there are also numerous drawbacks:

Immigrants can be exploited for their cheap labor;

Developing countries may suffer brain drain as the limited resources they spend in educating their students amount to very little if that talent is enticed to another country. (The UK for example is often accused of actively hiring medical staff from developing countries. The previous link details this issue further.)

Immigration can also attract criminal elements, from trafficking in drugs and people to other forms of crime and corruption;

Immigration can become a social/political issue, where racism can be used to exploit feelings or as an excuse for current woes of local population;

Where there is a perception that immigrants and refugees appear to get more benefits than local poor people, tensions and hostilities can also rise;

Concerns about illegal immigration can spill over to ill-feelings towards the majority of immigrants who are law-abiding and contributing to the economy;

Many die trying to flee their predicament, and this can often make sensational headlines giving the appearance that immigration is largely illegal and out of control.

Despite what appears to be large population movements, Gary Younge, from the Guardian noted some time ago that people still are not able to move as freely as commodities. In some places around the world, there are additional restrictions being put up on people's movements.

United States

New York-based Human Rights Watch reports on how the US Immigration and Naturalization Service treat immigration detainees as though they were criminals by putting these otherwise innocent people in jail, indefinitely.

US immigration policies, (especially noticeable during the economic boom at the end of the 1990s) are interesting in that they are really designed to bring in immigrants with a certain level and type of education to help enhance the nation, economically. While at first thought this seems reasonable, there are a few ramifications:

A disproportionate representation of that ethnic population becomes part of the American culture;

As a result it affects the stereotypical image of such minorities seemingly in a positive way as always being hard-working but also as only interested in the pursuit of financial gains, for example.

However, a strange twist occurs:

Some politicians use such stereotyped groups to show how other immigrant populations in the US who have been around longer should follow newer immigrant's examples

Some even using that as a basis to argue for a further cut in social welfare subsidies for example, unfairly blaming such people solely for their economic problems.

So, as an unfortunate example, South Asian Americans are inadvertently looked upon negatively by many in the Black and Latino communities, and vice versa.

For more details on this aspect, see for example, Vijay Prashad's books, The Karma of Brown Folk (University of Minesota Press, 2000) and Everybody was Kung Fu Fighting, (Beacon Press, 2001).

United Kingdom

In 1998, various human rights groups such as Amnesty International UK, expressed concerns at plans to improve the immigration process.

Fears and concerns cited included the following:

This plan would allow immigration officers more power than before to detain and increase the number of asylum seekers whose appeals have been refused.

Having more checks by liaison officers at the ports and airports of the countries that the asylum seekers are leaving would prevent genuine asylum seekers being able to flee their country where human rights violations may be taking place.

Even though the number of people seeking asylum in UK is not as large as some other countries in Europe, Amnesty International, for example, raises the concern that UK's current process means that the prison-like asylum centers house people who may be waiting up to seven years before their case can be heard.

It would seem that some of these concerns have come true while the media plays to the hype that politicians raise of immigration being out of control:

Media portrayal of immigration and asylum issues was quite mainstream in 2003, for example. However, a look at how three mainstream British papers, the Daily Telegraph, The Guardian and The Independent, respectively from the political right, left and center, reveals a common set of problems and similar levels of bias, as Matthew Randall summarizes:

As a rule, UK parliamentary debate on asylum and immigration is both selective and power serving. While the actual demographic and economic effects of immigration on the UK are rarely discussed, the causes of immigration - global inequality, conflict and human rights abuses - are ignored.

Irrespective of party, leading politicians repeatedly highlight issues of exclusion - fears of invasion, alleged threats and actual prejudices - ensuring a very negative image of immigrants despite their statistically small impact on society.... Concerns over crime, disease, terrorism, detention and surveillance are consistently pushed well to the fore.

This lack of balance can be attributed to a number of factors, including the existence of a covert racist ideology and the political expediency of the race card - factors that repeatedly compromise the welfare of refugees and immigrants.

Honest consideration of asylum and immigration issues should involve a far more diverse range of topics, reflecting the complexity of contemporary national and global relations. These include issues of nationalism, sovereignty, racism, demography, human rights, arms sales, war, refugee health, economic policy and moral responsibility.

Matthew Randall, Asylum and Immigration; Comparing the Daily Telegraph, The Guardian and The Independent, Media Lens, December 8, 2003

Often asked in England is why everyone wants to come to England. Yet, Randall, in the same article also notes that wider context is ignored leading to various skewed perceptions:

Is appropriate coverage given, for example, to the fact that in 2001 the UK had only 169,370 officially recognized refugees living within its borders compared to Germany's 988,500, Iran's 1.9 million or Pakistan's 2.2 million? Are we made sufficiently aware that during the same year the UK received 71,365 applicants for asylum, granting this status to just 11,180 individuals - 0.02% of the UK population? Or that Pakistan received a single influx of 199,900 Afghan refugees? Or that the ten largest refugee movements in 2001 were, with the exception of Yugoslavia, all made between countries in the Third World?

How many of us learn from our press that UK population growth is slowing down to the extent that it has actually become a cause for concern? How many are aware that a 2002 UN report recommended replacement immigration as a solution to this problem, or that the recommendation was rejected by the European Commission on the grounds that the impact of immigration on population was insignificant?

What do the media have to say about the fact that the UK has recently sold arms to all five countries of origin topping the UK list of asylum applicants in 2001? This, despite the fact that, in each case, violent military conflict remains the dominant root cause of refugee flight. More generally, what emphasis is placed on adverse conditions in countries of origin - poverty, human rights abuses, global income disparity, conflict and torture - in articles concerned with asylum and immigration?

Matthew Randall, Asylum and Immigration; Comparing the Daily Telegraph, The Guardian and The Independent, Media Lens, December 8, 2003

Randall also notes that, The issue of asylum and immigration is reported in terms of a threat and invasion despite a lack of statistical evidence supporting such dramatic claims. (Emphasis added). For example, the huge number of crimes committed against immigrants - from torture, forced eviction and illegal detention in their countries of origin, to property abuse and physical violence in the UK - is given far less attention than the much smaller proportion of crimes committed by immigrants themselves.

In terms of global context and wider coverage, the study noted:

Comparative analyses of immigration and asylum worldwide are barely referenced at all.

When this does briefly emerge, the issue in all cases involves a positive commentary on the strict exclusion policies of other European countries, and not, as might be expected, any analysis of the UK's comparatively low intake.

Discussion of the number of refugees and migrants entering and living in non-western countries is completely absent from all ninety articles studied.

Important root causes of immigration and refugee flight, such as war, torture, poverty and oppression, are referred to fleetingly, if at all.

The effects of poverty and inequality in sending countries are deemed unworthy of mention in any newspaper despite extensive coverage detailing politicians' condemnations of bogus and illegal economic immigration.

War and violent conflict are mentioned in just eight of ninety articles in all three newspapers, a very low figure when compared with the thirty-seven articles discussing the relatively minor issue of asylum seeker accommodation.

6% of the articles studied from these papers covered the situtation in sending countries, reflecting a general failure to discuss such aspects.

The fundamental macro issue of demography - indicating both the insignificant effects of immigration on population growth and its potentially positive effects on the UK's aging population - is not mentioned throughout the case study.

Macro issues that might embarrass powerful state-corporate interests are also ignored or neglected. Two major examples include the impacts of the arms trade and economic trade liberalisation. The former receives no mention at all, while the latter is hinted at (indirectly) in one piece in the Guardian.

The majority of articles that discussed human rights as a theme covered the same issue, about UK consiering withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights in order to justify the exclusion of certain asylum seekers. Yet, while a human rights issue, it is placed in the context of exclusion policies and bogus asylum applicants. This limits to just three articles any mention of human rights abuses in the country of origin - abuses that might have caused the original application to be made, and which cast a far less negative light on the subject of asylum and immigration.

In looking at the media coverage, an interesting observation was made:

An interesting, perhaps ironic, footnote to the thematic results involves the eight references made to media coverage. Both the Guardian and the Independent provide a number of articles denouncing what they describe as the essentially racist coverage of tabloid and right-wing newspapers, including the third news outlet in this case study, the Daily Telegraph. The latter does not follow this theme and has no articles mentioning media coverage.

However, as this case study shows, although opinions expressed on immigration themes certainly illustrate ideological differences between right-wing newspapers such as the Telegraph and the more liberal Independent/Guardian, there is clear conformity when it comes to deciding +which+ themes to discuss - a fundamental conformity.... Comment on this aspect of coverage does not feature in the Guardian/Independent articles criticising media performance.

Matthew Randall, Asylum and Immigration; Comparing the Daily Telegraph, The Guardian and The Independent, Media Lens, December 8, 2003

While a full third of the case studies afforded view points from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) (politicians being afforded the most coverage) giving the sense of balance, Randall notes that, a closer analysis shows that politicians remain overwhelmingly the agenda-setters in these articles with NGO representatives very seldom initiating the subject of the news item. Their role is very much confined to reaction and comment.

This general trend reveals how view points representing those who have influence are the ones that typically make it into mainstream discourse. Analysis of media sourcing demonstrates that UK newsgathering has a strong symbiotic relationship with political elites ensuring that a substantial number of articles are formed around government press releases and statements of policy. Groups without recourse to large public relations resources - such as asylum seekers, refugees and the predominantly small NGOs that represent them - tend not to set the agenda for issues under discussion.

We therefore get a strange situation whereby ideologically distinct newspapers focus on aspects of immigration and asylum that concur with the priorities of the political elite.... [representing] an extremely narrow range of information and opinion. The significant avoidance and omission of important themes and issues that should form regular and central points of reference leads to a support of an agenda of the political elite, even if that is not the intention.

Opinions reflect hype - especially during election time

Almost a year and a half since the above was written, the hype has remained. And as the British 2005 elections have drawn closer, the issue of immigration and asylum has been one of the issues discussed (out of an extremely small number of issues, it has to be added).

In a poll on immigration conducted for ITV News in the UK (April 2005), some interesting observations were made:

73% of people thought too many immigrants were allowed into the UK - and just 3% believed that not enough were allowed;

75% believe immigrants put a strain on public services;

39% of people believed immigrants bring disease to the UK;

25% felt migrants make Britain a thriving multicultural society;

In testing some of these views, ITV noted the following:

In the 2002/3 tax year, 272,000 people came to the UK from across the world and were given a national insurance number. Just 8% went on to claim benefits;

Between May and December 2004, 133,000 from the new EU countries registered to work in the UK. Just 21 of them were allowed to claim benefits (0.016%!)

On HIV, the Health Protection Agency does estimate that 75% of new heterosexual infections in 2003 were probably acquired in Africa. On Tuberculosis (TB), public health figures said 67% of TB infections were born abroad in 2002. But targeted screening at Heathrow airport found just 100 cases in 175,000 tests in 2004 (0.057%!). The British Medical Association said it has seen no evidence of a health tourism phenomenon.

For a long time, but increasingly during election times, spear-headed by right-wing parties such as the Conservatives and tabloid media, scares of immigration being out of control are returning.

For sure, there have been isolated incidents that cause much concern, such as the recent case of a failed asylum seeker killing a police officer and conspiring to create the deadly poison ricin (though it seems police foiled that in time).

However, using terrorism to add to the asylum and immigration hysteria just creates more fear and animosity. In effect, it also suggests that almost all (especially brown-skinned) asylum seekers and immigrants are potential terrorists.

(It has even got to the point where I know some fellow Asians in UK who also say that immigration is out of control, though they talk not of people from their own ethnicities and backgrounds of course, but of others.)

Furthermore, the impact on public services, like health, of obesity, excessive sugar/beef-based diets, tobacco and other unhealthy items far outweighs the impacts immigrants have on such services. (For more details on these impacts, see this site's section on behind consumption and consumerism, and on causes of hunger.) These other problems not only affect British people, but also have a significant impact on other parts of the world. Notably, there has almost been nothing discussed on these other issues during the same election campaign, in either a national or international context. Instead, immigration has been publicized as a more important issue.

United Europe

The European Union has had policies to control immigration from non-member countries. Spain for example seems to be facing a larger number of immigrants from Morocco and other North African countries where people want to escape their politically conflict-torn countries and seek a better standard of living in Europe. However, many people are dying trying to achieve this.

The preceding paragraph was written some 8 years ago, in 1998. In September 2006, similar issues still exist. Inter Press Service reports on many issues continuing today. For example, Spain recently threatened to deport illegal immigrants residing within its borders. In addition, The British government says it is considering restricting access to nationals of Bulgaria and Romania-if and when the two countries gain admission to the EU.

As the European Union has grown, it is common to hear concerns in UK for example, at the rising number of people from East Europe. The fear is the threat to job security and downward pressure on wages, which are understandable concerns. The underlying context of what makes this possible-the corporate drive for a more open, free market system within the EU, that will see winners and losers, and that also tends towards the lowest common denominators-is hardly discussed.

Interestingly, IPS also adds that Since 2004, when most Eastern Europe countries joined the EU, over 427,000 East Europeans, about two-thirds from Poland, have registered for employment in Britain. At the same time, Western Europe is now more inclined to hire Eastern Europeans both for skilled and unskilled jobs than Asians and Africans.

Some human rights activists say that the European restrictions need to be modified or African nations need to overcome their under-development in order to alleviate some of these problems. However, the current form of globalization doesn't look like it will immediately help the developing nations.

Economics, Poverty and Immigrant Scapegoats

It is generally believed that those immigrants who have had the courage to leave one country and move to another are often enterprising and entrepreneurial, even if poor. As such, in many countries, immigrants often set up small businesses. They however, become easy targets when the general economic conditions in that host country worsen.

In other cases, people become immigrants because they have fleed worsening conditions or persecution. In that situation, although they may live in another country, it may initially be quite difficult to adapt and change practices and customs. In such situations immigrants are clearly seen as different and in worsening economic times can be seen as sapping away resources that could otherwise have been used for local populations.

In the 1970s and 80s, Indian and Pakistani immigrants in the UK for example faced constant racist harassment and jokes about their small businesses. Many Indian and Pakistani communities escaping turmoil in East Africa were technically allowed to come to the UK but very quickly local populations became concerned and held numerous protests. While these communities have managed to weather this and many are now quite successful, the new wave of immigrants, Polish in particular it seems, face a new wave of hostility.

During the global financial crisis at the end of the 1990s, East Asia was particularly affected. This resulted in a wave of anti immigrant sentiments, for example in Indonesia there was a wave of violence against Chinese immigrants.

In May 2008, South Africa saw a wave of anti immigrant violence, as extremely poor South Africans turned against thousands of immigrants from other parts of Africa, killing some 50, and forcing thousands to leave.

In these and many other situations not mentioned here, anti-immigrant sentiment typically comes to the fore when economic conditions deteriorate. They are an easy target and either lies or exaggerations can contribute to fear, anxiety and ultimately hatred.

As discussed earlier mainstream media coverage in some countries, even places like Britain, makes it easy to stir up hysterical stories about immigration which helps direct the conversation and policies towards who can be toughest on immigration.

When economic conditions get harder, these views are easier to digest and adopt and deeper causes, of why people immmigrate in the first place, are less discussed. As a result, empathy and understanding for the situation and conditions immigrants face is easily lost.

There are indeed cases where some immigrant groups may come to countries like Britain under the mistaken and exaggerated understanding that if you cannot find work the government will pay for you to live (I remember on various vacations in developing countries being asked if this is true!). This may be tempting for some groups that face much hardship, but it will be understandable in that case that local populations will not look too kindly on this attempt to get a free ride. Where this happens, it is unfortunately too easy for populist anti-immigrant sentiment to exaggerate that all immigrants want this.

Other times, policy does indeed seem to favor struggling immigrants over struggling local populations; it could be argued that local populations have had more opportunity than immigrant populations, and so the latter may benefit from some temporary assistance, but local populations are not going to accept that easily leaving policy makers feel they have little choice but to appear tough on immigration.

Author and Page Information

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This page: https://www.globalissues.org/article/537/immigration. To print all information (e.g. expanded side notes, shows alternative links), use the print version: Introduction-Worldwide Immigrants Statistics Why do people emigrate?

# data[].attributes.headline
The Real Problem with Immigration...and the Real Solution

# data[].attributes.subject
The Real Problem with Immigration...and the Real Solution

# data[].attributes.body
Immigrants looking for better jobs improve the economy, but in turn weaken the US's legal and national security. 3/100 people in the USA are undocumented. These undocumented immigrants distort the law, distract resources, and create a cover for terrorists and criminals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
America's exceptional status as a "nation of immigrants" is being challenged by globalization, which is making both migration and terrorism much easier. The biggest challenge for policymakers is distinguishing illusory immigration problems from real problems. One thing is quite clear: The favored approach of recent years-a policy of benign neglect-is no longer tenable. Members of both the Senate and the House of Representatives recognize this and deserve credit for striving to craft a comprehensive law during this session of Congress.

In 2005, immigration policy received far more genuine attention on Capitol Hill, and Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle are now considering what to do about immigration policy. Their various efforts have focused on a wide variety of changes in current policy, including improving border security, strengthening employer verification of employment, establishing a new temporary guest worker program, and offering some level of amnesty to illegal immigrants currently living in the United States. At present, these proposals are working their way through the legislative process.

However, to achieve results, immigration reform must be comprehensive. A lopsided, ideological approach that focuses exclusively on border security while ignoring migrant workers (or vice versa) is bound to fail. If Congress passes another law that glosses over the fundamental contradictions in the status quo, then the status quo will not change. Thinking through the incentives is the key to success.

The Real Problem

Illegal immigration into the United States is massive in scale. More than 10 million undocumented aliens currently reside in the U.S., and that population is growing by 700,000 per year.[1] On one hand, the presence of so many aliens is a powerful testament to the attractiveness of America. On the other hand, it is a sign of how dangerously open our borders are.

Typical illegal aliens come to America primarily for better jobs and in the process add value to the U.S. economy. However, they also take away value by weakening the legal and national security environment. When three out of every 100 people in America are undocumented (or, rather, documented with forged and faked papers), there is a profound security problem. Even though they pose no direct security threat, the presence of millions of undocumented migrants distorts the law, distracts resources, and effectively creates a cover for terrorists and criminals.

In other words, the real problem presented by illegal immigration is security, not the supposed threat to the economy. Indeed, efforts to curtail the economic influx of migrants actually worsen the security dilemma by driving many migrant workers underground, thereby encouraging the culture of illegality. A non-citizen guest worker program is an essential component of securing the border, but only if it is the right program.

It is important to craft a guest worker program intelligently. While there are numerous issues involved in such a program, many of which are beyond the scope of this paper, the evidence indicates that worker migration is a net plus economically. With this in mind, there are 14 principles- with an eye toward the economic incentives involved-that should be included as part of a guest worker program.

Immigration Benefits and Costs

An honest assessment acknowledges that illegal immigrants bring real benefits to the supply side of the American economy, which is why the business community is opposed to a simple crackdown. There are economic costs as well, given America's generous social insurance institutions. The cost of securing the border would logically exist regardless of the number of immigrants.

The argument that immigrants harm the American economy should be dismissed out of hand. The population today includes a far higher percentage (12 percent) of foreign-born Americans than in recent decades, yet the economy is strong, with higher total gross domestic product (GDP), higher GDP per person, higher productivity per worker, and more Americans working than ever before. immigration may not have caused this economic boom, but it is folly to blame immigrants for hurting the economy at a time when the economy is simply not hurting. As Stephen Moore pointed out in a recent article in The Wall Street Journal:

The increase in the immigration flow has corresponded with steady and substantial reductions in unemployment from 7.3 percent to 5.1 percent over the past two decades. And the unemployment rates have fallen by 6 percentage points for blacks and 3.5 percentage points for Latinos.[2]

Whether low-skilled or high-skilled, immigrants boost national output, enhance specialization, and provide a net economic benefit. The 2005 Economic Report of the President (ERP) devotes an entire chapter to immigration and reports that "A comprehensive accounting of the benefits and costs of immigration shows the benefits of immigration exceed the costs."[3] The following are among the ERP's other related findings:

Immigrant unemployment rates are lower than the national average in the U.S.;

Studies show that a 10 percent share increase of immigrant labor results in roughly a 1 percent reduction in native wages-a very minor effect;

Most immigrant families have a positive net fiscal impact on the U.S., adding $88,000 more in tax revenues than they consume in services; and

Social Security payroll taxes paid by improperly identified (undocumented) workers have led to a $463 billion funding surplus.

The macroeconomic argument in favor of immigration is especially compelling for highly educated individuals with backgrounds in science, engineering, and information technology. The increasing worry about outsourcing jobs to other nations is just one more reason to attract more jobs to America by insourcing labor. If workers are allowed to work inside the U.S., they immediately add to the economy and pay taxes, which does not happen when a job is outsourced. Therefore, capping the number of H-1B visas limits America's power as a brain "magnet" attracting highly skilled workers, thereby weakening U.S. firms' competitiveness.

Congress increased the number of H-1B visas by 20,000 in November 2004 after the annual cap was exhausted on the first day of fiscal year (FY) 2005.[4] On August 12, 2005, the U.S. citizenship and immigration Service announced that it had already received enough H-1B applications for FY 2006 (which began October 1, 2005) and would not be accepting any more applications for the general selection lottery.[5] These and other numbers show that more workers from abroad, not fewer, are needed.

Still, critics of this type of insourcing worry that jobs are being taken away from native-born Americans in favor of low-wage foreigners. Recent data suggest that these fears are overblown. While the nation's unemployment rate generally has remained just above 5 percent over the past year, unemployment in information technology now stands at a four-year low of 3.7 percent.[6]

While the presence of low-skill migrant workers can be construed as a challenge to low-skill native workers, the economic effects are the same as the effects of free trade-a net positive and a leading cause of economic growth. A National Bureau of Economic Research study by David Card found that "Overall, evidence that immigrants have harmed the opportunities of less educated natives is scant."[7] The consensus of the vast majority of economists is that the broad economic gains from openness to trade and immigration far outweigh the isolated cases of economic loss. In the long run, as has been documented in recent years, the gains are even higher.[8]

A simple example is instructive in terms of both trade and immigration. An imaginary small town has 10 citizens: some farmers, some ranchers, a fisherman, a tailor, a barber, a cook, and a merchant. A new family headed by a young farmer moves to town. His presence is resented by the other farmers, but he also consumes from the other business in town-getting haircuts, eating beef and fish, having his shirts sewn and pressed, and buying supplies at the store, not to mention paying taxes. He undoubtedly boosts the supply side of the economy, but he also boosts the demand side. If he were run out of town for "stealing jobs," his demand for everyone's work would leave with him.

The real problem with undocumented immigrant workers is that flouting the law has become the norm, which makes the job of terrorists and drug traffickers infinitely easier. The economic costs of terrorism can be very high and very real, quite apart from the otherwise positive economic impact of immigration. In order to separate the good from the bad, there is no substitute for a nationwide system that identifies all foreign persons present within the U.S. It is not sufficient to identify visitors upon entry and exit; rather, all foreign visitors must be quickly documented.

Economic Principles for an Effective Guest Worker Program

To this end, 14 economic principles should be borne in mind in crafting an effective guest worker program:

1. All guest workers in the U.S. should be identified biometrically. Technologically, a nationwide system of biometric identification (fingerprints, retina scans, etc.) for visitors has already been developed for the US-VISIT program. A sister "WORKER-VISIT" program is essential for enforcement efforts and would help American companies to authenticate guest workers efficiently. There is at present no effective system of internal enforcement, but the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has in place a "basic pilot employment verification program"[9] that demonstrates the potential effectiveness of using such technology with guest workers to discourage undocumented work arrangements. Employers who want to hire guest workers should be required to verify electronically that the particular worker has registered with WORKER-VISIT and is eligible to work in the United States.

2. Existing migrant workers should have incentives to register with the guest worker program. A guest worker program that is less attractive to migrant workers than the status quo will fail. Therefore, the new law for guest workers should include both positive incentives for compliance and negative incentives (punishments) for non-compliance. For example, a program that caps the tenure of guest workers at six years can be expected to experience massive noncompliance at the six-year point because a hard cap on tenure is essentially an incentive to skirt the law. If the goal is to limit the number of undocumented foreign workers, then renewable short-term work permits have a greater likelihood of success than a single permit with an inflexible expiration date.

3. U.S. companies need incentives to make the program work. immigration reform will be successful if-and probably only if-American companies support its passage and enforcement. A new law must therefore avoid both onerous red tape (e.g., requiring an exhaustive search of native workers before a job can be offered to migrants) and any provision that would make it easier to hire guest workers than it is to hire natives (e.g., waiving payroll taxes on guest workers that must be paid on native worker payrolls). Perhaps the most important incentive is a negative one: The new law should include funding for a system of internal enforcement to police and prosecute companies that break the law.

4. Guest worker status should not be a path to citizenship and should not include rights to U.S. social benefits. If the incentive to work in the U.S. is artificially enhanced with a promise of potential citizenship, foreign migrants will be oversupplied. citizenship carries with it tremendous benefits (e.g., social spending and entitlement programs) that should be provided only to American citizens. For example, unemployment insurance benefits should never go to foreign visitors. Providing benefits such as unemployment insurance, welfare, Head Start, and other payments to visiting workers will significantly distort the incentives to migrate to the U.S. The legal status equivalent of guest workers is that of tourists-people who reside in America temporarily and are bound by U.S. law but do not have any claim on citizenship or its benefits.

5. Efficient legal entry for guest workers is a necessary condition for compliance. Existing illegal migrants should be required to leave the U.S. and then allowed a system of entry through border checkpoints with strict conditions for identification, documentation, and compliance with U.S. law. If the guest worker program instead involves prolonged waits for reentry or a lottery for work visas, existing migrant workers will have little incentive to comply with the law. Moreover, such reforms will be perceived as attempts to shrink the supply of migrant labor and will be resisted. However, a program of efficient legal entry for migrants who comply with biometric identification will not deter compliance and will encourage migrants to utilize the formal channels of entry rather than jumping the border.

6. Efficient legal entry should be contingent upon a brief waiting period to allow law enforcement agencies the time needed to screen incoming workers. A waiting period of at least a few days will give law enforcement agencies time to screen incoming visitors' biometrics against criminal and terrorist databases.

7. Provisions for efficient legal entry will not be amnesty, nor will they "open the floodgates." Such a system will actually encourage many migrants to exit, knowing that they will be able to return under reasonable regulations. This is in stark contrast to the status quo, in which the difficulty and uncertainty of reentering the U.S. effectively discourage aliens from leaving. Documented migrant workers would enter a new status: not citizen, not illegal, but rather temporary workers.

As for opening the floodgates, the reality is that they are already open. More to the point, labor markets operate effectively to balance supply and demand, and those markets are currently in balance. Creating a new category of legal migrants would not change that equilibrium, provide unfair benefits to undocumented aliens over others, or be tied to citizenship, but it would enhance security.

8. Government agencies should not micromanage migrant labor. Any federal attempt to license migrants by occupation-micromanaging the market for migrant labor-would be a dangerous precedent and would likely fail. Socialized planning of any market is inferior to the free market, and its implementation is dangerous on many levels. First, allowing government management of the migrant labor market would be terrible precedent for later intrusion into all U.S. labor markets. Second, it would be open to abuse, vulnerable to corruption, and inefficient even if run by angels.

For example, in the case of a worker certified as an avocado picker who has carpentry skills that his employer would like to utilize and promote, why should the worker and his employer have to petition a labor Department bureaucrat just to revise the worker'sskill certification? Equally implausible is a program that requires migrants and businesses to know one another prior to entry and file the relevant paperwork. labor markets do not work this way. Such schemes would quickly prove ineffective and lead right back the status quo. Real labor markets work informally, and the power of the market should be utilized to make the guest worker program function efficiently.

9. The guest worker program should not be used as an excuse to create another large federal bureaucracy. The inherent risk of authorizing a new guest worker program is that it will establish a new, unwieldy federal bureaucracy that outgrows its budget and mandate. Critics contend that the federal government is ill-equipped to handle the substantial influx of people who would enter the U.S. through a guest worker program. They further cite the long backlogs that plague other immigration programs, most notably the green card program.

One way to alleviate this problem is to involve the private sector in the guest worker visa process, much as gun retailers are integrated into the criminal background checks of gun buyers. Many parts of the guest worker visa process could be facilitated by contracting out certain parts of the process, including paperwork processing, interviewing of visa candidates (if necessary), coordinating with the DHS and federal law enforcement agencies on background checks, facilitating placement with prospective employers, and facilitating the exit upon expiration of the visa. As long as the private contractor has no conflict of interest in the visa selection or placement process, such a system should be better than another federal bureaucracy.

10. Bonds should be used to promote compliance after entry. There are many smart ways that bonds could be used to manage the immigrant pool. In one system, guest workers would pay upon entry for a bond that is redeemable upon exit. An individual who wanted to recoup the money would comply with the overall guest worker system and other U.S. laws, effectively acting as part of a self-enforcing network that discourages non-bonded, undocumented migrants. An alternative arrangement would have U.S. companies paying for the bonds as a right to hire some number of workers. If Congress felt compelled to cap the number of guest workers, the bonds could be treated like property rights and bid on to establish the market value of a guest worker. In both cases, the dollar value of the bond would be repaid after the migrant exited the U.S. but would be forfeit if the migrant went into the black market economy.

11. Guest workers should be required to find a sponsoring employer within one month (or some other reasonable period of time). The employer would verify via WORKER-VISIT that the particular worker is eligible to be employed in the United States. If the migrant cannot locate an employer within the time frame, the law should require that he or she leave the country. A sponsorship system is an efficient alternative to government management of the supply of and demand for migrant labor. It would be self-checking because employers could be required to submit payroll records regularly for automated review, which would identify the guest workers at each location. If employment with a sponsor ended, the worker would be allowed a similar reasonable period of time to find a new employer. Existing undocumented workers should find it relatively easy to get sponsorship with current employers, so the act of leaving the country and reentering would neither discourage their compliance nor come at the expense of legal migrants.

12. Day laborers should be required to find long-term sponsoring employers. The presence of tens of thousands of day laborers in the U.S.[10] may seem to pose a challenge to immigration reform, but the day labor market should not be given an exemption. A functioning WORKER-VISIT program would likely motivate the creation of intermediary firms that employ day laborers and connect them with customers in a more formal market that develops along the lines of subcontracting firms that are already active in gardening, house-cleaning, janitorial services, accounting, and night security. Intermediary firms could offer day laborers in teams of variable sizes, allowing the hiring firms to avoid the hassles of sponsoring and documentation paperwork. Skeptics might protest that most subcontracted jobs are routine (even regularly scheduled), whereas day labor is by nature last-minute and unpredictable. However, that is not really true in the aggregate, especially when compared with other last-minute industries like plumbing/flood control or emergency towing. Competitive firms can meet demand with very little slack as long as free-market incentives are in place.

13. Migrants and employers who do not comply with the new law should be punished. Migrants who decline to register and are subsequently apprehended inside the U.S. should be punished with more than deportation. Deportation is not a disincentive. The Cornyn-Kyl bill (S. 1438) contains a good proposal along these lines: a 10-year ban on guest worker participation for migrants who do not comply with the new program.[11] Congress should also consider a lifetime prohibition on violators' applying for and receiving U.S. citizenship. The law should introduce steep penalties as well, including prison time and seizure of assets of undocumented workers and their employers. There is no justification for working outside the system, especially a system that allows free entry. The law would establish a date certain after which all migrants in the U.S. must be registered or face these penalties. The lifetime ban on the opportunity to acquire U.S. citizenship would be a strong incentive for undocumented immigrants to enter the process of documentation. Likewise, firm, consistent, enforced penalties against employers would create the proper incentives for compliance.

14. All migrants should respect American law and traditions. The requirement to obey all laws is not optional for new citizens and should not be optional for visitors. While we encourage and insist on the primacy of American values for those who join our workforce, we should also remember the full spectrum of values ourselves. The Statue of Liberty reminds us that we are all equal, regardless of ethnicity, origin, or even state of wretchedness, and that America will continue to be a land of opportunity.

Conclusion

The century of globalization will see America either descend into timid isolation or affirm its openness. Throughout history, great nations have declined because they built up walls of insularity, but America has been the exception for over a century. It would be a tragedy if America were to turn toward a false sense of security just when China is ascending with openness, Western Europe is declining into isolation, and the real solution is so obvious from our own American heritage.
Tim Kane, Ph.D., is Bradley Fellow in Labor Policy and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D., is a Senior Policy Analyst in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Real Problem with Immigration... and the Real Solution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
America's exceptional status as a "nation of immigrants" is being challenged by globalization, which is making both migration and terrorism much easier. The biggest challenge for policymakers is distinguishing illusory immigration problems from real problems. One thing is quite clear: The favored approach of recent years-a policy of benign neglect-is no longer tenable.

# data[].attributes.body
Immigrants usually take up jobs in agriculture and construction. They can lower wages and drive out native-born workers. However, while they hurt workers, Immigrants lower the price of goods and services for the consumers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Immigration has an impact on a country's economy. Studies have shown that when people move to the U.S. from other countries, they add to the economic growth of the country. Immigration can help lead to increased innovation, education, economic productivity, and more.

Unfortunately, however, immigration in the U.S. is long-rooted in a past of the mistreatment of people and its impact on the nation's economy is a topic that is still debated among lawmakers. Below, we'll dive deeper into immigration in the U.S. and how it impacts the economy.

Immigration in the U.S.

Throughout history, people from all over the world moved to the U.S. However, not all people who immigrated to the U.S. chose to do so, nor have they been treated with the same respect and human rights. For example, prior to the Civil War, many people from Africa and other continents and countries were enslaved and brought to the U.S. to work in poor conditions without rights. During World War II, Japanese-Americans were forced into internment camps where the government required them to live and stay for months with little privacy or rights. And even in the 21st Century, some people who have come to the U.S. have been forced to enter detention centers where living conditions are inhumane and medical care is lacking.

In the fourth quarter of 2020 (October to December), 26,000 people received lawful permanent resident status after arriving in the U.S. from other countries. An additional 104,500 people already in the U.S. received lawful permanent resident status during that same quarter. This number does not include the 4,000 refugees who came to the U.S. in that time. The U.S. considers a refugee someone who has left their country of birth or citizenship and cannot return for fear of persecution based on their religion, race, nationality, opinions, or political memberships. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services determines whether someone has "suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion in their home country."

The federal government also tracks the number of people who come to the U.S. seeking asylum. People who seek asylum are refugees who are already in the U.S. or at a port of entry and meet the criteria to be considered a refugee. If they have a "credible fear" of persecution or torture in their home country, they can apply for asylum to prevent deportation.

If approved for asylum, a refugee can stay in the U.S., receive authorization to work, and apply for a Social Security card. They can apply for Medicaid or Refugee Medical Assistance and petition to bring family members, who are fearing persecution, to the U.S.

Not all people who immigrate to the U.S. enter legally and thus they are not counted for in the nation's immigrant population. It can be difficult to know how many people are undocumented in the U.S. at a given time, but the Department of Homeland Security last estimated that there were close to 11.4 million undocumented immigrants in 2018.

Immigration Laws in the U.S

Over the years, the federal government has passed immigration laws to allow for more or less people to enter the country. These laws are often tied to the needs of businesses, jobs, and employment in the U.S.

In January 2021, President Joe Biden proposed a new law on immigration, known as the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021. This bill-which as of September 2021 is still seeking approval from the House of Representatives-outlines plans to help undocumented immigrants become legal U.S. citizens, as well as update border controls, improve immigration courts, and more. In the interim, the Biden administration has also reversed several immigration laws put in place by past presidents.

Prior to Biden taking office, President Donald Trump had a wall built along the border between the U.S. and Mexico. The Trump administration also detained and deported thousands of undocumented people who entered the U.S., and limited the number of refugees and asylum seekers looking to come to the U.S.

Back in the 1990s, there was the Immigration Act of 1990 which created visa priorities for immigrants who had "extraordinary abilities" in science, arts, education, business, or athletics. Professors and researchers were prioritized, as were executives, managers, and holders of advanced degrees.

In the mid-1980s, the U.S. was recovering from a recession, and unemployment was high. More workers were unnecessary and so President Ronald Reagan proposed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 which was eventually passed. Under the law, businesses were not allowed to knowingly hire undocumented immigrants, but it legalized any who had entered the country before 1982. Undocumented farmworkers who could validate 90 days of employment were granted lawful permanent residence status.

The Refugee Act of 1980 was another immigration law that was passed to encourage refugees from war-torn areas to enter the U.S. While the law encouraged refugees from conflicted and dangerous regions, entry specifically depended on employment and housing opportunities, available resources, and the likelihood of refugees becoming self-sufficient.

A few other notable immigration laws in the U.S. include the Immigration and Nationality Act, which eliminated quotas based on nationality and favored highly skilled immigrants or those joining families already in the U.S., and the Bracero Agreement of 1942 which allowed Mexicans to assist farmers during the World War II labor shortage.

How Immigration Affects the Economy

Studies have shown that immigration can have a positive effect on a country's economic growth and productivity, innovation, education, and more.

In July 2019, there were approximately 44.9 million immigrant people in the U.S., making up 13.7% of the nation's population at the time, according to data from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey.

One common misconception is that immigrants take jobs away from native citizens of a country. Studies suggest that while some jobs are taken, the most likely scenario is that jobs are actually created. In a 2020 study, Azoulay et al. posit that immigrants are 80% more likely to become entrepreneurs and create jobs for people in the country. Most immigrants are of working age and they move to a new country to find (or create) jobs, thus having a positive impact on the labor force. An increasing number of immigrants have higher-level degrees, too, which can help increase innovation. Immigrant people make up 18% of the labor force that is 25 years and older; hold 26% of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) jobs; and hold 28% of high-quality patents.

Immigrants are good for a nation's businesses, too. First and second generation immigrants have founded 43% of Fortune 500 companies in the U.S. and 28% of main street businesses were founded by immigrants.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), immigrant people in the U.S. are also more likely to work in service occupations, natural resource jobs, construction, maintenance, transportation, production, and material moving roles. This helps ensure businesses can continue serving consumers.

Immigrant people who get a job after moving to the U.S. and pay taxes contribute to economic growth by spending money and consuming goods and services. The money paid in taxes also goes toward government employees, local and national projects, and more. If someone comes to the U.S. and does not have a Social Security number yet, they can use an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN). According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, undocumented immigrants pay over $11 billion in taxes per year.

Both documented and undocumented immigrants pay into social programs via taxes, but those without documentation may not receive many of the benefits that come from paying taxes. For example, undocumented immigrants are not eligible for Medicaid or Medicare because of their immigration status, but Medicaid funds are given to hospitals to help cover the costs of undocumented immigrants who need medical care at their facilities.

What Is the Future of Immigration in the U.S.?

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, increased immigration to the U.S. over the next 40 years would mean a "faster growing, diverse, and younger population in the country." However, the population is aging and is expected to continue to do so until about 2060. Increased or decreased immigration during that time could help shift that timing, but it will all depend on how many people come to the U.S.

With an older population, the U.S. will need more young people to work and sustain economic growth, employment, and more in order to continue the path of economic growth the country has been on for decades. Immigrants, both documented and undocumented, will play an essential part in that. It is necessary to continue accepting working-age people into the U.S. (or giving them a path to legal permanent residence if they are undocumented) in order to continue the economic growth of the country.

Frequently Asked Questions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Immigration has an impact on a country's economy. Studies have shown that when people move to the U.S. from other countries, they add to the economic growth of the country. Immigration can help lead to increased innovation, education, economic productivity, and more. Unfortunately, however, immigration in the U.S.

# data[].attributes.headline
History of Immigration and Policies placed on it

# data[].attributes.subject
History of Immigration and Policies placed on it

# data[].attributes.body
A lot of war-related immigration and persecution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
President Obama's executive action to protect millions of unauthorized immigrants from deportation is an act that both follows and departs from precedents set by his predecessors.

As immigrant advocates - and the White House itself - point out, presidents have a long history of using their discretionary enforcement powers to allow people to enter and remain in the country outside the regular immigration laws. But Obama's move offers relief to more people than any other executive action in recent history - about 3.9 million people, or roughly 35% of the estimated total unauthorized-immigrant population - a point that some opponents have used to differentiate Obama's action from those of past presidents.

Obama's announcement follows his decision in June 2012 to grant temporary reprieves from deportation for 1.5 million eligible unauthorized immigrants who'd been brought to the U.S. as children - the program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. In the memorandum announcing DACA, then-Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano framed it as part of the executive branch's role "to set forth policy for the exercise of discretion within the framework of the existing law." Obama's action expands that program, and protects other groups, using a similar rationale.

Most previous executive actions on immigration were targeted fairly narrowly, according to a summary compiled by the American Immigration Council. The 39 "executive grants of temporary immigration relief" since 1956 listed by the council covered, among other groups, Ethiopians fleeing that country's Marxist military dictatorship in the 1970s, Liberians who escaped their country's brutal civil wars, and foreign students whose academic eligibility was interrupted by Hurricane Katrina.

Other actions taken by prior administrations affected considerably more people. Most of them were eventually formalized or superseded by legislation, though sometimes - as often happens with complicated subjects such as immigration - the new laws led to new issues.

Here's a rundown:

Cubans fleeing Castro: In early 1961, at a time when thousands of Cubans were trying to escape the new Castro government, President Kennedy directed Health, Education and Welfare Secretary Abraham Ribicoff to set up a " Cuban Refugee Program" to provide federal assistance to Cuban refugees, including medical care, financial aid, help with education and resettlement, and child welfare services. That program was formalized the following year by the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act, and by subsequent legislation. By 1971, 600,000 Cuban refugees had entered the U.S.; as of 2012 there were more than 1 million Cubans living in the U.S. who had immigrated since 1959 (representing 97% of all Cuban immigrants), according to the 2012 American Community Survey.

The Cuban program, however, sparked a lawsuit from would-be immigrants from elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere, who argued that the immigrant visas given to Cuban refugees unfairly limited spots that otherwise would be available for them. In 1977, a federal court in Chicago ordered what was then the Immigration and Naturalization Service to issue so-called "Silva letters" to about 250,000 people - nearly all Mexicans living in the Southwest, according to a 1985 Los Angeles Times article - giving them temporary protection from deportation and letting them work while the complex case worked its way through the courts. Eventually, about 145,000 Silva letter holders received visas; the rest (at least those who were still living in the U.S.) remained in administrative limbo until the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act enabled them to apply for legal permanent residency.

Refugees from the Indochina wars: In early 1975, when it became clear South Vietnam was going to fall to the communist North, the Ford administration evacuated around 130,000 Vietnamese from Saigon. Ford and his successor, Jimmy Carter, subsequently allowed more Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotian refugees to come to the U.S.; between 1975 and 1979, about 360,000 people from the countries of Indochina were allowed to remain in the country.

Mariel boatlift: Between April and October 1980, approximately 125,000 Cubans and 25,000 Haitians (who were trying to escape that nation's grinding poverty and the brutal Duvalier dictatorship) arrived in south Florida by boat. The Carter administration used its discretionary authority to admit most of them into the country; those migrants eventually were made legal permanent residents by the 1986 immigration-reform law.

Spouses and children: The 1986 law, however, created a new dilemma: how to deal with spouses and children of newly-legalized immigrants who didn't themselves qualify for legal status. In October 1987, the Reagan administration said it wouldn't seek to deport minor children living with their parents as long as both parents qualified for amnesty under the 1986 law. Reagan's successor, George H.W. Bush, expanded that policy in February 1990: Under the new " family fairness " rules, all spouses and unmarried children of people who gained legal status under the 1986 law could apply for permission to remain in the country and receive work permits. Bush's policy was formalized later that year as part of the Immigration Act of 1990.

Central American refugees: The conflicts in El Salvador, Nicaragua and elsewhere in Central America in the 1980s and early 1990s led to a new series of executive actions on immigration. In July 1987, Attorney General Edwin Meese announced that the approximately 200,000 Nicaraguan exiles then living in the U.S. would not be deported so long as they had a "well-founded fear of persecution." Meese also encouraged them to seek work permits and reapply for asylum if they'd been denied before.

A similar number of Salvadoran refugees were allowed to remain in the country in "temporary protected status" under the provisions of the 1990 immigration law. When that status expired two years later, Bush extended it; his successor, Bill Clinton, extended it again, until the end of 1994. Eventually, the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997 allowed Nicaraguans, Salvadorans, Guatemalans and others to apply to become legal permanent residents. This opportunity was eventually extended to several thousand Haitian migrants (estimates range from 20,000 to 40,000) who'd been left out of the 1997 law - first by executive action from President Clinton, and ultimately through passage of the Haitian Refugee Immigrant Fairness Act enacted in October 1998.

Chinese in U.S.: On at least one occasion, a president actively discouraged Congress from carving out an exception to the immigration laws. In November 1989, the first President Bush vetoed a bill that would have provided emergency immigration relief for Chinese nationals in the United States following the Tiananmen Square massacre. In his veto message, Bush said that he was already providing greater protections to the Chinese through administrative actions and "opposed congressional micromanagement of foreign policy." In April 1990, Bush formalized and extended his policy by Executive Order 12711.
Correction: This posting has been updated with a revised total of 3.9 million unauthorized immigrants affected by the president's order.
Topics: Barack Obama, Immigration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Executive actions on immigration have long history

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Obama's executive action to protect millions of unauthorized immigrants from deportation is an act that both follows and departs from precedents set by his predecessors. As immigrant advocates - and the White House itself - point out, presidents have a long history of using their discretionary enforcement powers to allow people to enter and remain in the country outside the regular immigration laws.

# data[].attributes.body
Most people trace ancestry back to Germany. 12 Million Immigrants came through Ellis Island from 1892-1954. Immigration Act of 1924 put limit on number of people from each country that could come to the US. Limit removed in 1965 with Immigration and Nationality Act.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
U.S. Immigration Before 1965 - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Find out more about the history of U.S. Immigration Before 1965, including videos, interesting articles, pictures, historical features and more. Get all the facts on HISTORY.com

# data[].attributes.body
The globalization of free trade brought multinational nations easy access to foreign markets in poor, vulnerable countries.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Before they even opened their mouth, each new arrival was living evidence of the wickedness of communism. The very fact that they had to escape and could not return marked a violation of their basic human right to the freedom of movement.

Last week the British government spearheaded a European Union proposal to send immigration officers to Bosnia and Croatia to teach them how to put a stop to the traffic of the world's "undeserving poor". "The Balkans' route is the single most important source of illegal immigration into western Europe," said Jack Straw. "If we can close it or restrict it, we are on the way to winning the battle." The Berlin wall has collapsed; welcome to Fortress Europe. Politics used to keep people in; now economics keeps them out.

Even as the west encourages the former communist states to open up their markets to foreign investment, it is teaching them how to close their doors to foreign people. For what was once hailed as a human right is now opposed as an economic liability. Our governments are trapped in a morally warped and ideologically unsustainable paradigm. They applaud the free movement of capital; they abhor the free movement of labour.

Lay off workers here and move your factory to the other side of the world, where labour is cheaper, unions are weaker and regimes are more brutal and you are hailed as an entrepreneur. Arrive at Waterloo clinging to the Eurostar or in Dover on the back of a lorry with the intention of working long hours for low pay and you will be branded "bogus" and labelled a scrounger.

The two are inextricably related. For it is the increasingly unfettered free movement of capital, championed by the west, that helps create the poverty which prompts the economic migration from the developing world. Structural adjustment programmes, imposed on countries by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in return for loans, generally lead to swingeing cuts in health, education and welfare spending and mass privatisation. The effects can be devastating. Take Zambia: IMF-imposed reforms forced the government there, among other things, to charge for healthcare and privatise the copper mines. GNP dropped 16%, the mortality rate of under-fives almost doubled and 60,000 workers were laid off in two years.

Norman Tebbit's dad should have counted himself lucky; he only had to get on his bike to look for work. These people take planes, trains and boats. But when they arrive the response of the wealthiest nations is not to rethink the policies which are creating this havoc but to build higher walls, train more border guards and target new arrivals with racist rhetoric.

That does not mean that Britain has turned its back on economic immigration - far from it. It is one of the paradoxes of recent years that as the vitriol against asylum seekers has increased so has the number of economic immigrants. According to the Home Office the number of work permit holders and their dependants has risen by more than a third since Labour came to power. The sharpest increase has been from Africa which indicates that we are not only hammering their weakest, we are cherry-picking their strongest too.

So it is not foreigners per se our government loathes; it is poor people. Asylum seekers, with their tales of torture, rape and solitary confinement, can get to the end of the queue and wait for their vouchers. Britain wants professionals with IT skills, teaching qualifications and nursing certificates.

As a further round of trade talks begin today in Geneva these contradictions are set to be brought into sharp relief. The World Trade Organisation's general agreement on trade in services (Gats) aims to liberalise everything from health and education to water and tourism. "I suspect neither governments nor industries have yet appreciated the full scope of these guarantees or the full value of existing commitments," the former WTO director- general, Renator Ruggiero, has said.

Campaigning organisations, such as the British-based World Development Movement, take this as an ominous warning. Gats, they believe, will undermine democratic sovereignty throughout the world, strengthen the hand of the multinationals and wealthy western nations and weaken the developing world by forcing countries to privatise essential services and then forbidding them from reversing these decisions.

The WTO insists these concerns are either exaggerated or fabricated. Gats, they say, neither obliges countries to privatise, nor open markets and does enable them to reverse decisions, negotiate waivers and override commitments when health and safety is at stake.

But their assurances wilfully ignore one golden rule - whoever has the gold makes the rules. The agreement is for free trade, not fair trade. Any rich nation or huge multinational with an eye for a new market has access to lawyers and lobbyists that poorer countries cannot afford, who will find loopholes and twist arms to get what they want.

That is more or less how "free trade" works at the moment. With considerable persuasion from the Chiquita banana company, which funds both the Democrats and Republicans, the American government sought to make an example of small Caribbean island producers. It is difficult to imagine Dominica, which has a population smaller than Fargo, North Dakota, taking on the US over its farm or sugar subsidies.

The WTO's position at present amounts to asking poor nations to trust them as honest brokers. Given their record, this is a bit like the big bad wolf telling Little Red Riding Hood: "Sorry about your granny. Why don't you pop over for lunch?"

At a meeting with non-governmental organisations on Friday, one EU negotiator explained wearily that American domination was "a fact of life". As with joining the euro, which most Britons do not want but believe is going to happen anyway, an air of destiny had grown up around globalisation. Governments from the developing world have, in the past, seen little alternative to trying to get the best they can from a bad deal.

But there is nothing inevitable about this round of talks giving the west or the WTO what they want. For what the big guns cannot buy is public approval. Their agenda is unpopular in the west too. An NBC-Wall Street Journal poll last April revealed that by 48% to 34%, Americans think that foreign trade is bad for the US economy.

The failure to reach an agreement in Seattle last year was a sobering moment for them. Mike Moore, the WTO director, insists this will not happen when the WTO roadshow moves to Doha, Qatar, in November: "We will not fail this time, because if we aren't sure of success by September we will redefine the goal."

This gives the NGOs and developing world everything to play for but also, potentially, an awful lot to lose.
gary.younge@theguardian.com Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Comment: The west wants free movement of capital, but not labour

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Before they even opened their mouth, each new arrival was living evidence of the wickedness of communism. The very fact that they had to escape and could not return marked a violation of their basic human right to the freedom of movement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Economics of Immigration: Crash Course Economics #33

# data[].attributes.body
Skilled laborers leaving poor countries for the rich ones for better pay and labor laws-large toll on poor countries. Especially on Medical staff depriving many poor countries and its citizens of decent medical treatment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Brain Drain of Workers from Poor to Rich Countries - Global Issues

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Brain drain is a problem for many poor countries losing skilled workers to richer countries